I'm one of those unfortunately optimistic peoples.. but srsly, can we get an update on direction Garret? Sam?

oh man..  I wish that's what I'd bought in at... I did manage to get more for under my original buy price towards the end there, but not close to that.. must have been down to the hours to get that price.

For months and months Goat? Then why weren't you bitching at least one quarter of months and months ago? I'm with silver and alincon (who if you remember was making a fuss not too long ago, and now seems appeased.)

Didn't vote for liquidation, and won't.

e: also Goat, if you feel like throwing bitcoin away.. <--------

I also vote for Terabyte if he can devote the time to it.

Blood in blood out, right mainline?

The thing is, if the price increases, mining solutions that would not make ROI actually have the chance to do so. Meaning buying gear with a less than 100% ROI is just a gamble, one supposing that the price will increase.

I can't help but feel that a little bit of this Ukyo/Actm Share business is spiteful on Ken's part. The alternative is Ken really needs that 100btc. For what? dunno. I am happy to see that wall go away, it seems to have sparked some trading movement too, neat. Should let the less-confident get out while they still want to.

Actually I think this has happened previously.

Yeah, I thought so at least. There's already a bunch of assets listed on there.

Ken, are you looking into XCP? A distributed exchange that has already released command-line implementation and uses proof-of-burn to create the initial alt.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1wtz2b/2124_btc_destroyed_in_proofofburn/

The goal here by certain parties is clearly either A) to prep weak hands or B) to disparage the company in favor of the one they work/shill for. That is it.

If you think that Ken has made any of these decisions without the direction of his lawyers you are bonkers.

Ukyo will still be able to recoup his shares minus whatever lien was imposed upon it.

I agree it gets complicated at that point, but the ball is in Ukyo's court on how he would like to challenge it.

I don't really know why everybody is arguing this point, it's somewhat silly.

Ken has funds for the refund and not as much for hiring because he isn't going to spend those funds until products are shipped to them.

I think he meant a personal decision which one you want. I do think though that I would want to trade on whatever exchange the majority of everyone else is on (not a 'me too' thing, how could I trade with no movement?) I think I'll be in the colored coin boat. Also keep in mind the colored coins group may take a little more time to get trading. (I don't really know. Them helping with tools to assist transition is pretty cool though.)

Volanic: then do it. Did you order a miner? Request a refund if you are unhappy. Try to keep speculation and fear-baiting out of this discussion.

Good stuff Bar, will be checking in while at work. I'm curious to see what they have to show you.

Returns are in fiat, so no. Unless said person buys more btc and the price appreciates, then yes.


My mistake, I clearly meant customers.

Sure, investors are free to request a refund and I doubt Ken will deny this (I don't really know as it hasn't happened yet.) But they also run the risk of having to get back in at the end of the line when evidence of production does actually come out.

Ugh. Failing to meet expectations is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. This is not to say that there is not intentional wrongdoing occurring, just there is no evidence to support an argument in either direction. This absence of information however is the biggest problem I currently see with Active and certainly agree that we should have information be presented much more clearly. Sure, if it is not possible to present such information then explain why. If the explanation fits the realm of plausible occurrence, cool; otherwise we certainly need more fluid conversation with development.

I've had enough baseless claims without any supporting information for the night. Time to watch 'mah stories.'

Withholding of information is for sure not lying, and I would make the argument that it isn't deceit either. This is a public forum in which an actual business is discussed. Any information that can come out can twisted, manipulated, and used against this company in any number of ways. You wouldn't expect Apple to converse with all of its shareholders in this manner would you? Laying out all their cards on the table, as such.

I'm not so much talking positive points here of Active, in fact I'm not happy with the current state of affairs here. Shit should be happening and I also would like to know more in detail about why it isn't. But I also know that shooting yourself in the foot makes it hard to walk sometimes.

If anything, you should be pointing to the lack of a forward-looking-statement disclaimer as the last post had. In this case I would agree that you could make the point that they didn't reach the goals they clearly stated they intended to achieve. But they didn't intentionally tell an untruth and they haven't stolen anything. Deceit well, is omission of some/many facts deceit?